On Nov 18, 2007 4:50 PM, Simo Kauppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would appreciate if somebody could take a look at the package and point out > any packaging mistakes in it.
A review of your package: Don't forget to send your patches upstream. Might want to ask upstream to split FAQ 2-6 out into FAQ.install or something. I think your python stuff needs to be better; pyversions should be used to get the list of versions to compile for. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython/NewPolicy Any reason you don't include /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch.make instead of inventing your own patch/unpatch targets? The homepage should be removed from the description: http://wiki.debian.org/HomepageFieldHOWTO Any reason you only produce a static library and no shared library? Do any other packages use the static library? If not, maybe it could be dropped? Has the security team been informed that it includes a copy of the xpdf code?? From the debian/rules it looks like you build against libpoppler instead. You might want to get upstream to drop it from the tarball, since it seems libpoppler can be used. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
